I have commented before that if we wanted to create a simpler and cheaper system that covers everyone, there are ways to do so that reduce health care costs more effectively. Funding a National Mutual Healthcare company would be one, as would expanding HSAs, with subsidies for the poor. I think pragmatically as well as ideally, because I know my ideals are a minority position.

But, there is no great interest for shrinking the US Government or its actions. There are many competing for a little more from the weakening body of the US Government. I live near DC, and am aware through friends of some actions in the bureaucracy, both high and low, and from Congressmen also, a few of which deign to send me tidbits.

Michael, I appreciate your response. Write anytime. As it is, it is time for me to write tonight’s post.

I find this to be a fairly silly view, and mostly irrelevant. It’s trivially true that some minimum level of care greater than zero would be a great benefit to the nation as a whole. The marginal value to the whole of increasing that minimum if it is already at high levels is certainly debatable, but the value of going from zero to non-zero is obviously high. You need to get over the fact that some people who made stupid choices earlier in their life might get a free ride someplace. People already get free rides / things they don’t deserve all over the place, you shouldn’t let that get in the way of being able to see what would ultimately be best for the whole.

Also, the fact that 99/100 people give less to charity than you illustrates the problem with charity. It can _never_ have the same level of impact as a well funded gov’t program. If you felt that the problems you hope to solve through your charity were really worth solving, you’d help create the political will to solve those problems in a real and sustainable way.

I don’t know any actuaries. I believe they must be bright. Whether they “shoot straight,” however, depends on their aim (pun intended).

Having lived around Washington, DC, for more than 3 decades and worked some political issues with various Administrations and Congress, I find it difficult to give much credibility to a health industry actuary on a health industry issue–especially one as critical and controversial as this. He may be right, but I would much more trust such an assessment from a non-industry source.

As for the CBO, it is independent (in my view), but its projections (like almost everyone else’s) over a decade are more often wrong than right. In this case, they probably don’t have the actuarial capabilities they need to make a better projection. In general, my experience with CBO projections is that they overstate the positive effects of prospective policies while understating the negatives (in this case, health insurance cost). (See the CBO’s assessment of the ARRA as another example.)

Yes, we had some severe booms and busts in the absence of central banks, but in aggregate the economy grew a lot faster, because we cleared up bad debts, making up for the volatility. We reduce volatility with central banks for a time, but in the end, we get the volatility in bigger doses. Can’t cheat the system. Can’t end booms and busts.

PS — the bust in 1873 lasted six years, I think.

Health care is a privilege, not a right, and most of those that don’t have health care did a number of things early in their lives to sabotage their chances. They didn’t study. They didn’t seek counsel. They put pleasure ahead of the long term. They didn’t ask, “What do I have to do by age 18, 22, 30, in order to maximize my odds of success?”

Call me what you like, I write this because I love people, and want to give something back out of my experiences. What I write certainly does not compensate for my time. I write because I love my lousy nation, and do not want it to fail. Passing a health care bill is one more step on the road to national death. Health care doesn’t matter if the nation dies.

Spoken like a true American, who doesn’t give a damn about anyone but himself. Lowest of the low.

I wonder how the dozens of millions without health care feel.

I personally did not hear the presentation; my plane got held up in Atlanta. The bills as currently configured will benefit the health insurers. Healthy people will migrate to private plans; the public option will be more costly than expected, because the subsidies will attract older and sicker people. The cost estimates done by the CBO will not hold up.